There's another movie due in January called the Gangster Squad. The trailer has been airing on TV this week. Apparently this movie isn't being delayed. The trailer consists solely of people with guns, lots of them, unloading on each other. It is only punctuated with a slow-motion vid of empty shell casings hitting the floor.

I wouldn't sit through five minutes of a Tarentino movie. Reservoir Dogs was all I needed to see to conclude Tarentino is a talentless bore who appeals to the baser instincts of movie goers with senseless violence and a lot of f-bombs.

I read a great book by Joe Bob Briggs wherein he argues that Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch is a great movie because it shows violence and gore fully, so as to show the audience just how awful it is.

It's a stupid argument. Violence porn, whether in movies, video games, or elsewhere, is the same as any other porn. People get off on it. That's why they buy it, whatever the pecker who made it intended.

Since the crime in Connecticut is the justification for what is substantially an irrational "conversation" about, well, something must be done, because something must be done...

Here are some proposals that, good or bad, make at least as much sense as the renewed call for banning scary looking guns with scary media descriptions:

> Adopt a convention among media outlets that says suspects in horrific mass killings like this won't be identified.

The media have a convention, largely followed I think, about not naming victims of rape, and not naming minors who are accused of crimes. Obviously of much less grave concern is a convention sportscasters have of largely ignoring, in tv and radio broadcasts, incidents of people intruding into the field of play.

So let's adopt a new one. The name of these killers won't be renowned; it will be obliviated. It will be a matter of public record, anyone who wants to know can contact the authorities; and of course, it will get out via social media; but the big media will not name them.

(Bonus: this will help avoid naming the wrong person, and save innocent individuals incalculable damages.)

> The media will refrain from unsourced or unnamed sources for the particulars of these crimes, and will tell their anchors to shut up when they don't have something to say while they wait and wait.

They don't have to have these ghoulish broadcasts. It's their choice. Let's hear some talk about "responsible" use of constitutional rights--when it comes to the First Amendment.

> Hollywood and others in entertainment might do some soul-searching about standards and practices. They have them; but they continually bend them to get a little more tittilation value wrung out of their offerings to the public.

And, let's be honest; there are things they are legally able to show, which people would pay to see, that even their dessicated consciences won't quite stomach.

> Maybe the President, in his "Let's stop killing kids" moral dudgeon, could take a little more seriously the objections many--Left and Right--have to abortion on demand and drones killing civilians at weddings and funerals, and his Kill List. Maybe he could show a little more concern about the guns his administration sent to Mexican criminals.

> Lastly, there are indeed practical proposals being made about better care for people with mental illness and related problems. To wave this off, as those with a single focus on grabbing guns are doing, deserves scorn.

Just think how much better he might have been. Or not. Maybe he as so good because he had to struggle without his fingers.

I would never watch this movie either mainly because of the statements by Jaime Foxx. Frankly I haven't heard much about him before this, but he is now added to a longer list of so called celebrities that I refuse to support.

Althouse may have been mocking Tarentino, but very early on I noticed that Tarentino's admirers always affect a first name familiarity with him. I first noticed this back in the 80's waiting in line to see one of his first movies:

"I love Quentin's movies" squealed a young female admirer.

This phenomenon seems unique to Tarentino. I just googled a list of American film directors; imagine hearing:

The alpha and omega of what makes a director first rate is whether he crafts scenes that stick in the mind's eye. By that standard Tarantino is a very talented movie maker. Yes, almost everything Tarantino does is violence porn, but is it memorable? Very. Reservoir Dogs; Pulp Fiction; Kill Bill: filled with memorable scenes and all beautifully coreographed - there is no other word for Tarantino's pacing - as well.

The movie was in the writing/planning stages when Congressperson Giffords was shot and shooting (no pun) during the Denver shootings, so we're supposed to believe these guys have suddenly developed a conscience?

Ann Althouse said...

Quentin's tired. Give him a break.

Lili Von Shtupp, the Teutonic Titwillow, would understand.

chickelit said...

Clint Eastwood does enjoy a certain first name basis popularity, but not nearly as much as Tarentino.

I've only seen 3-4 Tarantino films. "Pulp Fiction" was the only one I liked.

I can't help but believe that the orgy of violence, its glorification and presentation as a problem solving method in many films has some sort of detrimental impact on our culture. Yet, Hollywood accepts no responsibility and many of its denizens work to destroy our freedom and rights while refusing to exercise restraint with theirs.

The alpha and omega of what makes a director first rate is whether he crafts scenes that stick in the mind's eye. By that standard Tarantino is a very talented movie maker. Yes, almost everything Tarantino does is violence porn, but is it memorable? Very. Reservoir Dogs; Pulp Fiction; Kill Bill: filled with memorable scenes and all beautifully coreographed - there is no other word for Tarantino's pacing - as well.

--------------

Agreed.

But I don't like the last one you mentioned. Kill Bill was an awful movie, both parts. Way too slapstick and ridiculous.

I've only seen 3-4 Tarantino films. "Pulp Fiction" was the only one I liked.

I can't help but believe that the orgy of violence, its glorification and presentation as a problem solving method in many films has some sort of detrimental impact on our culture. Yet, Hollywood accepts no responsibility and many of its denizens work to destroy our freedom and rights while refusing to exercise restraint with theirs.

---------------

There have been some recent studies done that have shown that there is a strong correlation between television watching and the declining birthrates in the developed world (something that is spreading to the not so developed world - Iran, for instance).

Personally, I think Tarantino is one sick puppy. He's far too fixated on extreme violence, which he throws into his movies on the slightest excuse. In fact, his movies ARE just an excuse to portray violence. Plot, character -- nothing matters but the violence.

There's some weird psychopathic or sociopathic quirk at work in the Gummy Wonder's movie-making.

It's one thing to say, we don't want to censor content; it's another to say there's no need.

It seems very hard to argue the content and message of entertainment doesn't change people. It seems schizophrenic, pardon the choice of adjective. Of course these things affect us, and frequently change us. None of these things ennoble anyone? Enlargen people's consciences and horizons?

It seems quite obvious that a lot of the entertainment industry has sought, over the last 40+ years, to change attitudes: towards race issues, toward unreflective American chauvinism, and toward "alternative lifestyles"...and it's worked. Anyone who says none of this happened is, I think, naive or disingenuous.

Well, why can't the effect go both ways? Why can't these same vehicles for moral sentiments and powerful images coarsen or degrade us?

It always amuses me when people think a priest is somehow shielded from shocking things. Someone curses and apologizes to me. Why? You think I don't know all those words? Why wouldn't I? I wasn't ordained in 2nd grade.

A moment's thought about the sorts of things people bring to clergy ought to dispel that notion.

With that preface, I assume I'm no different from others here: there are things I wish I'd never seen and didn't know about. Some of the movies advertised--such as "Saw"--are, from what I know of them, so foul that I really don't want to know more about them.

I won't mention the movie, but I recall some months ago hearing a movie title somewhere, being curious about it, looking it up on wikipedia...and being very sorry I did: for days. The premise was that repulsive.

In Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, he developed the idea of how evil leaves its mark, even on virtuous people. He's right. There is a too little appreciated value to "innocence," yes, even in adults. I've met people who weren't stupid, weren't incapable people, but yes they were "innocent" of many awful things. I envied them.

With that preface, I assume I'm no different from others here: there are things I wish I'd never seen and didn't know about. Some of the movies advertised--such as "Saw"--are, from what I know of them, so foul that I really don't want to know more about them.

I won't mention the movie, but I recall some months ago hearing a movie title somewhere, being curious about it, looking it up on wikipedia...and being very sorry I did: for days. The premise was that repulsive.

Tarentino is a talentless bore who appeals to the baser instincts of movie goers with senseless violence and a lot of f-bombs.

While I agree with the violence-porn label, I disagree that he is talent-less. As a director and a writer, he's got a gift for dialog. It's kind of hard to pin down, but what he comes up with (not always, but often enough) are gems that engage dispute the surroundings or the settings. He also has a knack for reinventing retro music; another skill that's hard to pin down, but he's obviously been successful with it.

And...he's done something nobody else could do. He singlehandedly saved John Travolta's career despite Travolta's own best efforts to end it.

I'll be missing this latest attempt, though, as while I love westerns, anything that has to do with westerns and slavery has zero facination with me and, frankly, smacks of kill-whitey-porn, as Jamie Foxx as much admitted.

While I agree with the violence-porn label, I disagree that he is talent-less. As a director and a writer, he's got a gift for dialog. It's kind of hard to pin down, but what he comes up with (not always, but often enough) are gems that engage dispute the surroundings or the settings. He also has a knack for reinventing retro music; another skill that's hard to pin down, but he's obviously been successful with it.

----------------------

Tarantino does have a gift for gab.

I don't think he has anything to do with the music, though. He's not a musician or producer.

People always want to give credit to directors for everything in their movies, when in reality direction is only a small part of the puzzle.

As a director and a writer, he's got a gift fordialog. It's kind of hard to pin down, but what he comes up with (not always, but often enough) are gems that engage dispute the surroundings or the settings. He also has a knack for reinventing retro music; another skill that's hard to pin down, but he's obviously been successful with it.

I guess its a matter of opinion. I didn't find the discussion of Madonna's pussy in Reservoir Dogs to be very compelling.

As for the retro music, I think its more re-introducing retro than reinventing. Personally I think was more akin to shock-director than anything. He's just not my bottle of Scotch.

I agree with Friar Fox and I would just say – go see The Hobbit if you haven’t done so already. I was a bit apprehensive that it wouldn’t be as good as the Lord of the Rings (which I rewatch every year on my birthday) but I think that the first Hobbit movie is as good or even better than LOTR.

I agree with Friar Fox and I would just say – go see The Hobbit if you haven’t done so already. I was a bit apprehensive that it wouldn’t be as good as the Lord of the Rings (which I rewatch every year on my birthday) but I think that the first Hobbit movie is as good or even better than LOTR.

----------------------

I've boycotted that movie because they split it into three halves so they could get more money out of people's wallets.

I guess its a matter of opinion. I didn't find the discussion of Madonna's pussy in Reservoir Dogs to be very compelling.

Case as case may be, but the foot massage discussion just before they bust into an apartment in Pulp Fiction was fun. Pulp Fiction is laden with moments like that.

As for the retro music, I think its more re-introducing retro than reinventing. Personally I think was more akin to shock-director than anything. He's just not my bottle of Scotch.

You could reintroduce a song by merely adding to the credit scroll or maybe as an overdub for the trailer, but reinventing requires taking the original song and making something new with it...something that sticks in the mind. For instance, "Stuck In The Middle With you" from the infamous "ear" scene in Reservoir Dogs or "Son Of A Preacher Man" in Pulp Fiction. Older songs that were used for a much younger audience that now identifies that music and those lyrics with those particular scenes. Reinventing.

Personally, I think Tarantino is one sick puppy. He's far too fixated on extreme violence, which he throws into his movies on the slightest excuse. In fact, his movies ARE just an excuse to portray violence. Plot, character -- nothing matters but the violence.

I can't help but believe that the orgy of violence, its glorification and presentation as a problem solving method in many films has some sort of detrimental impact on our culture. Yet, Hollywood accepts no responsibility and many of its denizens work to destroy our freedom and rights while refusing to exercise restraint with theirs.

Remember "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"?

It made a statement about the institutionalization of people not quite sane.

It contributed to the "Freedom Movement" of the '70s.

Result: masses of homeless people who do not remember to take meds, refuse to take them, or refuse to go to the clinic to get them.

And insane people who slaughter others, when they should have been locked up for everyone's sake.

I've boycotted that movie because they split it into three halves so they could get more money out of people's wallets.

Is it? I suspect Jackson is making an attempt to be true to the book rather than like some book to movie adaptations that attempt to cram a intricate storyline that turns into a 90 minute pile of shiite.

I've boycotted that movie because they split it into three halves so they could get more money out of people's wallets.

I think that they made the right choice from a story-telling perspective. The movie version of the Hobbit encompasses more than the just the events seen in the original book and also develops several scenes that were mentioned in the books and were integral to setting up the events of the Lord of the Rings.

s it? I suspect Jackson is making an attempt to be true to the book rather than like some book to movie adaptations that attempt to cram a intricate storyline that turns into a 90 minute pile of shiite.

My understanding is that the studio fronting the money wanted a trilogy and he had to go deeeeeep into the appendices to make it happen. From the fanbois that I know, they are more interested in the 48fps than they are with a creeping, somewhat boring origin-story-first-movie. The real meat-n-potatoes, so to speak, won't begin until we deal with Smaug.

Is it? I suspect Jackson is making an attempt to be true to the book rather than like some book to movie adaptations that attempt to cram a intricate storyline that turns into a 90 minute pile of shiite.

----------------------

The book is a 300 or so page children's book and the storyline is not intricate at all.

The Rankin-Bass cartoon managed to hit most of the plot at an hour and a half.

something that sticks in the mind. For instance, "Stuck In The Middle With you" from the infamous "ear" scene in Reservoir Dogs

I think you touched on my aversion to Tarentino because that was, was being the key word, favorite song. Now I can only relate it to seeing a helpless guy having his ear hacked off by a sociopath.

I'm just not into torture movies. Didn't see Pulp Fiction but heard enough to know that I didn't miss out on anything. Hell I left the theater when Daniel Craig was getting his balls destroyed in Casino Royale.

I've boycotted that movie because they split it into three halves so they could get more money out of people's wallets.

I think that they made the right choice from a story-telling perspective. The movie version of the Hobbit encompasses more than the just the events seen in the original book and also develops several scenes that were mentioned in the books and were integral to setting up the events of the Lord of the Rings.

---------------------

Yeah but part of the fun of the Hobbit story is that it's not tied in too tightly with LOTR and it can be enjoyed as a stand alone thing.

Perhaps you will find this entertaining--it is offered as that, nothing more:

A "friar" is a member of a "mendicant religious order"--mendicant meaning that they beg and live on what they beg.

The etymology of the word derives from French frere, which is from Latin, frater, which means "brother."

The Franciscan Order is more properly known as the "friars minor," or lesser brothers.

A "brother" is a non-ordained member of a religious order, the male counterpart, as you would guess, to "sister" (which is not the same as a "nun," but that's for another discussion).

I am not a Franciscan, not a member of an order; I'm a diocesan priest. But I am looking more and more each day like the movie version of "Friar Tuck."

Wait--there's more!

When I visited a Benedictine Monastery in Norcia, Italy a few years ago--the birthplace of the great Saint Benedict!--the Benedictines, famous for hospitality, had put name cards at our places. For the priests who were religious--i.e., our Benedictine hosts who were priests--the title was "Father"; but not for the visiting Diocesan priests. What, you may ask, was the title?

"Don"...derived from Latin, Dominus, "Lord"! Sometimes this becomes "Dom," in academic circles if I recall correctly.

Anyway, I don't object to being called "Friar," but I'm not, actually; and I thought you might find that information diverting.

Is it? I suspect Jackson is making an attempt to be true to the book rather than like some book to movie adaptations that attempt to cram a intricate storyline that turns into a 90 minute pile of shiite.

I listened to an interview with the main cost members and Ian McKellen made this very point. The reason that people usually think that a film adaptation of a book isn’t as good as the book is because so many things get cut out or rushed in the film that fans enjoyed from the book. McKellen was very adamant that Jackson was determined to be true to the fans of the series which meant spending as much time as needed to tell the story properly.

@ Fr Martin Fox – thank you I did find that entertaining and informative. As you might have guess, I referred you as “Friar” on the mistaken belief that “Fr” stood for “Friar” rather than “Father” and I appreciate the correction and your good humor in making it.

I've boycotted that movie because they split it into three halves so they could get more money out of people's wallets.

Uh....you realize that the Lord of the Rings is a trilogy? A three book series, where each book approaches the whole story from a slightly different angle and highlights different sets of characters? There is no way that they could combine all three books and put them into one movie without totally losing the flavor and reason for the books.

I have to agree with Tarantino on this one. It's just a movie. If postponing it makes financial sense, then fine. Pretending it's an issue of "respect" is granting a silly fantasy on a screen far more influence than it deserves.

I feel your pain. Why, right near my house there's this place decorated with lots of pictures of a man nailed to a cross with his heart hanging out dripping blood. Jeez, talk about gross.

I won't mention the movie, but I recall some months ago hearing a movie title somewhere, being curious about it, looking it up on wikipedia...and being very sorry I did: for days. The premise was that repulsive.

Human Centipede! Am I right?

Although, that attitude may keep you from some movies you might actually enjoy. Texas Chainsaw Massacre, for example, is actually pretty well done, and there's lots of eating of flesh and drinking of blood, which should help you feel at home. On the other hand, the way Jessica Biel wears a pair of blue jeans might make you question your vocation, so there's that.

I would be curious to find the percentage of women that like Tarantino's movies. I've talked to several men that think he's a genius, but I've never heard that from a woman.

Personally, I can't stand his stuff. I gave up on Pulp Fiction after about thirty minutes. Watched Inglourious Basterds because my husband wanted to see it, but I wasn't impressed there either. I find his characters one dimensional and uninteresting.

The reason that people usually think that a film adaptation of a book isn’t as good as the book is because so many things get cut out or rushed in the film that fans enjoyed from the book

Try taking a 500 page book and turn it into a 120 page screenplay. Omissions are inevitable.

I don't think it's a matter of size. I've always found it interesting that the best movies are based on mediocre books (The Godfather), while even short great novels (Great Gatsby) make mediocre movies.

Fr Martin at 1:24, I think you've made an excellent point. Great music and literature and films can ennoble us to an extent, so why do people try to argue that things like violent movies and video games can't do the opposite?

I also enjoyed your little discourse on "friar" etc.

I saw the theatrical trailer for the new Tarantino movie a few weeks ago, in a theatre. It was interminable. I have no real interest in supporting Jamie Foxx, but the main reason I won't be going to see Django Unchained is simply that it looks like a bad movie.

I wouldn't have seen the movie anyway. It sounds like, if nothing else, it's a waste of time and resources. So are a lot of things far less violent and far less profane a waste of time and resources.

When I was home visiting family this summer I had to not-watch the show White Collar because my sister disapproves of the way television shows make being a criminal seem not-bad. I said "lets watch this" and she said "what is it about" and I said "a con artist works with the FBI while... oh, never mind."

I think it's about a flawed person trying to learn to live up to an honorable person's expectations, and the show itself is starting to deal with the possibility of the influence going the other way, instead of Neil becoming "good" is Peter going to become "bad"? At heart, dealing then with serious moral issues and a quite bright line between right and wrong.

But my sister wouldn't see it that way, she'd just see the glamour of being a clever con artist.

I'm probably just as picky as she is but with other ideas. One thing that bothers me a whole lot is the sorts of sterile, tidy, violence in books and movies. I was reading Redwall to my kids and in the third book or so I hit my limit and refused to read any more. Those books are a weird mish-mash of inconsistent alternating garment rending and callous treatment of violence. I found them morally appalling... but my sister liked them. I'm particularly sensitive to the clean, tidy, and unimportant death of countless minions in fiction, books or movies. I'm unnatural enough to have thought, while watching the movie, "those storm troopers have *families!*"

I don't watch horror films. Not ever.

I liked Conan, actually. And that got accused of being torture porn. My reaction to it was that it had a great deal of moral clarity, and that that fountain of blood from someone's *foot* was nearly a farce because, seriously, a fountain of blood from a foot?

Do I think that movies and video games that involve horrible violence make us more capable of violence? Probably they do. But "capable of" isn't the same as "inclined to" and I think it's probably important to be "capable of" violence.

Say what you will about De Caprio's involvement in Django, but if Leo's production house had beat out Brad Pitt's over the movie rights for WWZ, we might not have gotten the stinking, re-filmed, re-re-filmed pile of detritus that's going to be foisted upon us next year.

I (as a woman) liked Pulp Fiction. I especially liked the way it was cut to mix up past and future events. I found that part interesting. The characters were different as well; fascinating losers. But then.....that was the book by Elmore Leonard and not so much Tarantino.

The Left may hate it, but if we are going to have a "National Conversation" about Sandy Hook Elementary School, part if that conversation will be on the role of their Hollywood and mass media mogul - allies.It cannot just be on guns.It has to be about violence pornographers like Quentin Tarantino - and how that film maker deserves the tag "violence porn producer" every time his name is mentioned because he makes to other sort of flick.

It has to be about violence pornographers like Quentin Tarantino - and how that film maker deserves the tag "violence porn producer" every time his name is mentioned because he makes NO other sort of flick.

=============And don't buy into the media moguls defense that violence porn - be it the next mass death Tarantino movie, the next Mortal Kombat game, the next black rap artist backed by tens of millions in music industry mogul's investment - does not influence the psychos and the black thugs that kill 200 times the number of people lost in psycho killer massacres.

The Left may hate it, but if we are going to have a "National Conversation" about Sandy Hook Elementary School, part if that conversation will be on the role of their Hollywood and mass media mogul - allies

I've never seen a credible source that connects violent movies to actual gun violence. Gaming either.

We're a messed up and brutally violent country. Not sure how you change that.

Have you noticed how Hollywood movie studios never seem to cancel premieres out of respect for ghetto kids who die of gunshot wounds?

It would be awfully tough to schedule one for when there weren't any. Of course the only time one of those makes the news is when a cop does the shooting - then you get the Jacksons and Sharptons of the world, and the mom going on TV and telling how poor little D'Quan was a good little boy that never hurt no one (never mind all the gang tats) and that all he was armed with was a bag of skittles.

We'll post the place and time and day hereabouts; no doubt many Althouseans would enjoy a blognic. In some mainstream drinking and eating establishment. I'm certainly counting on that to make the evening enjoyable.

And then let's see if you will care to repeat your bon mots out loud, within arms' reach of those present.

I've never seen a credible source that connects violent movies to actual gun violence. Gaming either.

The militaries have always used movies as indoctrination and motivational tools - since WWI at least. Constant recorded radio speeches and now video aimed at dehumanizing their targets. Additional movies, video and "live action simulation (ie games for military use) to make them better and more willing killers.

It all works and has valid "effectiveness of training" metrics. Hence the tens of billion in military investment in media that makes soldiers more motivated, efficient, and less remorseful killers.

I'm late to the party but will comment on The Hobbit anyway. I am a Tolkien fan, and took one son (also a Tolkien fan) and a nephew this past weekend. I had not known in advance that this was to be part I only, but I did not feel cheated when the movie came to an end. I enjoyed it a lot, and look forward to seeing part II. Son and nephew also enjoyed it.

Jackson is going to run out of JRR material in fairly short order. I wonder what he will move on to adapting to the screen.

garage mahal said...The militaries have always used movies as indoctrination and motivational tools - since WWI at least

Still doesn't explain why countries like Canada or Australia doesn't have the same routine violence we do.===================Yes it does, Media violence porn is effective across countries in indoctrinating the limited audience of new soldiers - as desired.When you talk about broader society - you see countries that limmit exposure of kids to violence porn, strong norms that make any person too into media violence product and acting out as an outcast, and who keep crazy people away from guns while having full access by normal law-abiding citizens to guns - like Canada.

And since we are a multiracial society as opposed to Japan or Canada for the most part - at least where they are not cursed with a dysfunctional violence/intimidation addicted black underclass - we have higher violence rates.

This "national conversation" must also include how and whether this killer received any kind of moral instruction. Did he regularly attend Sunday School? Was he exposed to any didactic literature in school? Or was his moral compass formed by the "free to be you and me" school of morality?

"Try taking a 500 page book and turn it into a 120 page screenplay. Omissions are inevitable"

OK, but if Peter Jackson got the genius idea to stretch out The Hobbit into multiple films so he could do justice to the whole story (and more), why oh why couldn't he have done the same with each volume of LOTR? Where is Tom Bombadil? WHERE IS THE SCOURING OF THE SHIRE??????

Is it? I suspect Jackson is making an attempt to be true to the book rather than like some book to movie adaptations that attempt to cram a intricate storyline that turns into a 90 minute pile of shiite.

I don't know about Jackson's Hobbit, but that's not what he did with Lord of the Rings, which I'm currently watching on DVD.

I understand filmmakers must omit material in order to fit a novel into a film, especially something as huge as LOTR, and Jackson did his share of that (like the Tom Bombadil section) and I understand.

However, that does not explain all the material Jackson added -- all of the Arwen/Aragorn scenes, all of the Gimli dwarf joke scenes, the whole warg battle ending in Aragorn's death and resurrection, Farmir's attempt to take the ring from Frodo, Merry's tricking the Ents into attacking Saruman, etc.

Then there are the grotesque changes to the book's tone in which Jackson keeps everything cranked up to eleven throughout the film with loud music and Jackson's constant fallbacks onto his horror movie chops. (Jackson comes from horror.)

Jackson butchered LOTR. To his credit he does create beautiful sets and Tolkien's material is so strong it shines through enough to provide a satisfying experiece for those who don't know the books. Just don't tell me that Jackson tried to be true to Tolkien.

"But Quentin should stop pretending he's making serious films instead of serving up violence and gore for people's titillation."

Regarding this and other condescending remarks about the violence in Tarantino's movies (and in much popular culture), when Skakespeare's plays were performed at the Globe Theater, actors wore pig bladders filled with blood and sometimes viscera to simulate real wounds and gore in scenes where violence was depicted. Humankind's fascination with viewing depictions of violence is innate, and the tut-tutting of it by those who would be the moral arbiters of society probably has almost as long a history as does the depiction of violence by storytellers throughout history.

Tarantino is certainly no Skakespeare--no one is but Shakespeare--but he is more than merely a schlockmeister. He is a smart, talented filmmaker who uses the tropes of popular culture and genre films--including violence--to tell his stories. I like him just fine. I think his best work is JACKIE BROWN, to my memory his least violent movie.

Let the record show Fr Fox did not disagree w/what you were doing is/was quite evident as it happens all the time at political blogs ie childishly calling someone out er say that to my face, big boy! :zzz: